Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
The main purpose of government is to promote the welfare of its people. And yet over the last few decades, through numerous inquiries, it’s become clear that the Australian government has failed to provide services for the Australian population as well as might be expected.
If the treatment of persons is unethical, it will inevitably lead to ethical corruption in the people and the institutions involved in administering it. It is almost impossible to participate in a policy based on such unethical premises without being complicit in it. If we do, we become blinded to what we owe one another by virtue of being human.
Much of the discussion about tax reform is about the mechanisms of collection; around changes to things like negative gearing, stamp duty, land tax, capital gains tax, and superannuation. But what is missing is a statement of values about what we expect our tax system to fund.
In a hierarchical society, we routinely celebrate and reward various dominating and competitive behaviour. When children and young people replicate this in the playground, we call it bullying. Anti-bullying measures may be more effective shifting the focus away from perpetrators and on the social and institutional context.
How can we make progress on the question of whether debate can do harm, and if it can, whether that’s a sufficient reason to suppress particular debates? Or should we adopt a ‘no debate!’ approach to particular topics ourselves?
This rush to the missile age is part of a broader escalation of the arms race in previously peaceful regions, distancing countries like Australia and New Zealand from their roles as honest brokers in a nuclear-free Pacific.
Even the best forecasting gets it wrong, and every year has its own 'Black Swan' events, characterised by their unpredictability and impact. They remind us that the future is unpredictable, perpetually lurching between prediction and confusion.
It’s that time of year when futurists and prophets play fast and loose, projecting visions rife with both promise and peril, weighing the possible against the improbable. As we contemplate competing pictures of the future, although every forecast risks missing the mark, one thing is certain: 2024 won’t be a year for the faint-hearted.
As the government drafts legislation to stem the rising tide of misinformation circulating online, the nation debates: will these measures sufficiently regulate online content and curb potential harms or threaten freedom of expression? This moment is a critical test for the integrity of Australia's public discourse.
How will a warming planet impact us? In conversation with Eureka Street, longtime climate journalist and contributing editor for Rolling Stone Jeff Goodell discusses two decades of covering climate change, examining the effects a superheated world, and how humanity will need to adapt.
The Australian Indigenous Voice referendum has been rejected, as anticipated by many, with the meaning and consequences now up for debate. This debate may be as crucial as the referendum debate itself to determining the future of reconciliation and what it means to be Australian in the 21st century.
Later this year, Australians will vote on a referendum to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but many Indigenous Australians remain undecided, reflecting the complexities of the issue. The debate over the Voice to Parliament extends beyond the referendum question to encompass broader concerns about the constitution, treaties, and achieving true equality.
49-60 out of 200 results.